STATE Vs. V.RANGARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts leading to the filing of Crl.A.Nos.389, 390 and 391 of 2013 is as follows:-

(2.) The case of prosecution in Crl.A.Nos.389, 390 and 391 of 2013 is as follows:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant/State in Crl.A.Nos.389, 390 and 391 of 2013 would submit that the lower appellate Court has failed to appreciate or access the value of evidence from proper perspective and it is based on surmises. The lower appellate court also failed to note that in a case wherein civil nature arises, the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents submitted by them would be scrutinized with diligent care. The lower appellate Court also failed to note that the property in dispute, undisputedly belongs to the family of PW.1 as ancestral property. The lower appellate Court also failed to note that the alleged Will dated 22.12.1986 executed by the said Vinayathammal in favour of A1 was disproved by the expert opinion Ex.P26 that the thumb impression found in the Will is not her thumb impression and the lower appellate Court ought not to have discarded the expert opinion. The lower appellate Court also failed to note that as per Ex.P3, Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1950, Vinayathammal had no right to encumber the property and in fact, she was given only life estate over the property and further, the Settlement Deed is not disputed by A1. The lower appellate Court, without looking into the documentary evidence, had passed the order of acquittal on imaginary grounds. The judgment of acquittal passed by the lower appellate Court is bad in law and hence, liable to be set aside.